To those beltway insiders who think the 50-State Strategy was a failure

[rpannier]

How about this statistic:

Only 8 of the 29 races won by Democrats in 2006 were in districts carried by John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. In fact, Democrats actually won 11 districts where Kerry won less than 45%.

If the people who traditionally mismanage the Democratic Party had their way, we'd have put almost no money into those 21 races that we won.

carville and friends will gladly point to the three of four races we might have won had Dean done it their way, but we never would have won the other 21.

For those who hate math it's a net minus of 17.

In addition, we have to ask ourselves how many state legislatures we would have lost had we been running the 06 campaign like we had the 04, 02 and 00.

You can argue vote fraud all you want, but when you pin your hopes on a strategy whose foundation rests on a 50%+1 victory there is no room for error.

My exceedingly conservative mother has said for 6 years, "You cannot ignore the fly-over states and hope to win by running an election on the coasts and a few areas of upper midwest." This election proved her correct.
More importantly to everyone but me (She's my mother after-all) -- it proved Dr. Dean correct.

carville and his ilk need to congratulate Dr. Dean, then slink away to their coffins and 'Shut the f*ck up!"

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Win With Dean; Lose With DLC. What Don't I Get?

When the DLC ran the DNC, we got our clocks cleaned in six straight elections.

An actual Democrat took over the DLC, and we won both houses.

What am I not getting here?

[fasttense]

2. Well said rpannier. n/t

[Democrat 4 Ever]

5. Last night on Real Time with Maher, Chuck Schumer just couldn't

bring himself to praise Howard Dean the way he should. He and Rahm Emanual are still taking bows for the "wonderful" job THEY did. I'm not saying they didn't work their butts of but if the DNC had listen to them we would have maybe picked up 10-12 seats in the House and still be in the minority in the both the House and Senate. Schumer just couldn't say that Dean did a great job, that Dean had the right strategy that worked perfectly. He should be down on his knees and thanking Dean for his brilliant work on behalf of all of the people in the USA. Our six years nightmare is beginning to end.

Schumer threw Dean a "bone" with a quick bit of "good job" and not the "Damn, damn, damn that Dean is good." that should have been said.

[dubykc]

3. Very well said, and your mother is a wise woman...

much like mine was. You're lucky to have her.

[katinmn]

4. It's all about central control. They want to pick the candidates,

tell them what to say, steer their campaigns.

We could have won more seats in Minnesota if Dems would have gotten support they needed to combat the mega-millions spent on negative ads. Rowley, the FBI whistle-blower, went to Crawford in August 2005 and they never forgave her for it.

[acmejack]

7. I wanted Coleen to win so badly.

I was quite bitterly disappointed.

[katinmn]

11. Me too. She would have lent some keen insight

[Aviation Pro]

6. I am absolutely convinced....

...that the rancor served up by Sling Blade Carville and the rest of "Democratic" oligarchy is based not on the success of Dr. Dean's triumph, but on their twisted thinking that the "wrong" Democrats got elected: ones with integrity and honor who are unsoiled by the monied interests. This portends an erosion, in their fetid minds, of the way "things" have always been done, i.e. a vocation that lines the pockets of the well connected. They imagine their worst nightmare, an informed electorate that makes their own decisions without being influenced by money, and that frightens them to the core.

[BootinUp]

8. The 50 state strategy is a long term

effort that involved spending money in areas where we were not competitive in 2004 or 2006, to build up the grassroots. This was not a one year plan. It was never planned as a strategy to win the 2006 midterms. Go read Deans own words on why it was important. What Emmanuel and Schumer and Dean were fighting about, was that tHe DCCC and DSCC wanted to put more of the DNC money into competitive races. Anyone who doesn't get this has a problem with critical thinking or reading english or just doesn't give a fuck as long as they can boost their guy whovever it may be.

from a recent article in the NYT:

Before this midterm election-year began, but not long after Dean became party head, Emanuel and Schumer decided that if Dean wasn’t going to raise anywhere near as much money as his rivals at Republican headquarters, then he ought to at least give them whatever resources he could muster. They went to work on Dean, pleading with him to transfer as much as $10 million to the two committees to help them respond to the Republican TV barrage. Emanuel told anyone who would listen that back in 1994, when Republicans sensed a similarly historic mood swing in the electorate, the R.N.C. kicked in something like $20 million in cash to its Congressional committees. (This argument was impressive, but not exactly true; the R.N.C. spent roughly that much on federal and local races combined in 1994, and little, if any, of that money went directly to the committees themselves.) Dean categorically refused to ante up. Having opposed the very idea of targeting a small number of states and races, he wasn’t about to divert money from his long-term strategy — what he calls the “unsexy” work of rebuilding the party’s infrastructure — to pay for a bunch of TV ads in Ohio. He wanted to win the 2006 elections as much as anyone, Dean told them, and he intended to help where he could. But Democratic candidates and their campaign committees were doing just fine on fund-raising, and the party couldn’t continue giving in to the temptation to spend everything it had on every election cycle — no matter how big a checkbook the Republicans were waving around.

For Schumer, Emanuel and their allies, this rejection was irritating enough. When they heard the stories of how Dean was actually spending the party’s cash, however, it was almost more than they could take. Dean was paying for four organizers in Mississippi, where there wasn’t a single close House race, but he had sent only three new hires to Pennsylvania, which had a governor’s race, a Senate campaign and four competitive House races. Emanuel said he was all for expanding the party’s reach into rural states — roughly half the House seats he was targeting were in states like Texas, Indiana and Kentucky, after all — but he wanted the D.N.C. to focus on individual districts that Democrats could actually win, as opposed to just spreading money around aimlessly. The D.N.C. was spending its money not only in Alaska and Hawaii, but in the U.S. Virgin Islands as well. Democratic insiders began to rail against this wacky and expensive 50-state plan. “He says it’s a long-term strategy,” Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist, said during an appearance on CNN in May. “What he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose.

The 50 state strategy is very important in my opinon, I am glad Dean stood up to the DC apparatus on this, but an election wave that resulted because of the failed and corrupt Repulican Revolution is not the doing of Deans 50 state strategy, that is ridiculous. I have no problem giving Dean credit for his efforts but can we stop the fantasy world posts? What Deans strategy will do is to help us maintain and grow what we just won and thats why it is important.

[rpannier]

9. I disagree with your final analysis

It is true the republikkans corruption and incompetence was a huge factor in our success.

But don't undersell the fact that we had people on the ground in places like Indiana, Kentucky, etc that were talking up the candidate(s) to their friends and neighbors.

These were not guys driving out from Hammond, IN or Chicago, IL out to Anderson or La Salle trying to sell people on ideas given to them by someone Democratic committee in Washington DC.

One thing I learned from having lived in a small town for one year and having relatives that have lived in small towns their whole lives is that, "They are suspicious of outsiders. And, they are more likely to be swayed by the opinions of their neighbors than from an outsider." And while the second point may be true of all people, it is especially true of small, insulated communities that don't trust outsiders.

In addition, the move to put people on the ground, showed people in these regions that we were serious about trying to get their vote. This was not just the usual, we'll make an effort for three weeks prior to the election, lose and then pack our bags and go.

People were looking for a reason to vote for Democrats. We have to act like we want to win. Not just go through the motions. IMO, the 50-state strategy was a major part of the equation, because we look like we might actually be serious about wanting to win everywhere.

Finally, sometimes longterm solutions pay off quite quickly, whether intended or not. This was one of those moments. And I say this as someone who did not vote for Dean for in 04 and was not sure he was the right man for the DNC job.

[BootinUp]

10. Its impossble to measure

the effect of the 50 state strategy in 2006 except to say it didn't hurt us. Its probably silly to argue over it too, so I'll just leave it to others.

[Kber]

12. The 50 state strategy

allowed democrats to capitalize on the republicans' failures. Without infrastructure and decent candidates, we wouldn't picked up a single seat from the foley scandle, for example.

[leftofthedial]

13. democratic campaigns effectively have been run by repukes

for two decades now